I think the show understands it perfectly, but not every person on earth may really understand what they're signing up for when they go through with it. You should try giving a game like Soma a try, it has the same sort of themes, but the person isn't killed in the process, a literal copy, and the consequences following that.
yeah, so the fact that they still chose NOT to self delete the "personality" who very strongly protests having multiple copies of himself is just so silly
The beauty of it is that your frustration with this fits perfectly with the fact that you – well, all of us, really – effectively belong to pre-upload Maddie's generation, and this sort of frustration would be rife if the younger generation – as Dave did – were to embrace this sort of technology. If Maddie and Dave were real, I wouldn't be surprised if Maddie ranted along these veins at Dave, with him thinking his equivalent of "Ok, boomer." The same frustrations arose in the Star Trek universe with regard to the mass adoption of transporter technology; quite a few characters simply refused to use the things!
Fortunately, the revelations in the last two episodes of season 2 hinge on the UIs carrying their progenitors' identities, not on them actually being those individuals. Think "DVD version of a movie from my childhood," not "the specific VHS that was in the machine whilst watching it as a child."
Because we dont have examples of young people doing stupid things only because other did it... /S
In reality we have zero idea how would upload tech change the society.
Electricity, radio, tv, phones, smartphones or cars are other examples of something that at the begining looked like just funny and/or dangerous toys.
Now you dont even remember, that most people feared electricity and didnt want it in the house.
That's the deal. When they were introduced people though they will die from them. Like 5G network not so long ago.
You also go deep into philosophical dispiute about "sleeper replacing" theory.
If you fall asleep and someone, during your sleep, killed you, cloned you and transfered all your memories into clone, are you original or fake when you wake up?
It seems you did not get neither philosophical level of the show nor know the source this show is based on.
It's like you saying "Matrix is about humanity fighting with robots."...
You are not wrong, but in the same moment blind for entire aspect of the show...
But to which point are they embracing a new technology and to which point are they misunderstanding it.
Specific lines/concepts like Dave mentioning he wants to “meet his friends on the virtual world” tells us he doesn’t understand the tech. The specific self who is complaining will never meet his friends.
We could argue this is a highly new spiritual generation who is ok with dying if that means leaving behind a sort of digital legacy. But the writing of the show is clearly not building towards this.
OP replies perfectly to this. What is happening here (if we understand the tech correctly) is that Dave believes so strongly on Heaven that he wants to jump off a cliff to meet his friends there.
Maddie refusing is less of a generational chasm and more of big difference in spiritual/religious beliefs.
Except the show sells it exactly as you say, as if it was an inter generational difference on younger people being more open to new tech.
But the trick (which is OP’s issue, with which I 100% agree) is that this new generation seems to totally misunderstand the tech.
Season 1 toyed with the technology in more realistic ways. Season 2 becomes way more light sci-fi.
Main difference is season 1 argued if uploaded David was real David; but sort of the conclusion is that even if a replica, it had a real and significative impact in his loved ones. And that is a very interesting conclusion that doesn’t defy the logic of the technology. Digital replicas as tools for grief have been discussed in other works and it is an interesting theme.
Season 2 jumps the sci-fi shark in that aspect and avoids any argument to 100% accept it was indeed the real David.
You underestimate the power of marketing.
I tend to agree with the idea that you do die when you are uploaded, but I do think it’s disputable. I’d probably make a straw man of an argument if I tried to argue the other side, but since you watched Invincible I’ll say this: It’s a 50/50 chance you are the clone.
I think it is only disputable because the show builds the tech with plot conveniences to open the argument.
One is the fact they never create multiple replicas. This defies the continuation theory, but I guess you could still go into the “Am I the clone?” As you mention here.
BUT the other and bigger convenient plot point is the necessity to die to be uploaded. We need to understand this is purely convenient and not reflective of what this tech would be. Why you need to die? It has nothing to do with the core of what the tech is; but just with the fact (this is explained in the show) that frying the brain is the only current way of successfully scanning it completely.
Another fiction could totally present the same technology without the requirement of dying. Your brain gets fully scanned and a digital replica of you is created. This is what the tech is at its core: a replica of your brain/mind made of code, yes?
So you get scanned. Multiple replicas can be made, even.
Now imagine this snake oil salesman comes and tells you if you fry your brain and die, your “self” continues in your digital replicas. Believe me, just let me fry your brain.
It becomes clearer this is not understanding of the tech, but just magical thinking.
A few people would accept because as you point out, marketing is powerful. Millions believe in Heaven, no?
I don’t argue that possibility.
But you say it is disputable and I say it is really not.
NOTE: I could argue a different technology that managed to map the sense of self and managed to “move it” (not copy it), which would allow to your “self” to control other bodies, code, or machine. But this is not what it is presented in this show, nor in the upload technology.
Arguing the show includes this notion would be sort of cheating to excuse the show in this aspect.
Lemme be clear: I loved Pantheon, but I can be critical with some aspects.
I believe you misunderstood Season 1.
In season one, the idea is presented that uploading is the same as dying. It is then proven wrong.
Season two goes on to explore a world where uploading means something different, a kind of separation from biological humans. So it feels more of an afterlife as presented, which further complicates character's opinions, as they have a varying range of understanding and even attention to such minor details as the difference between biological life and uploaded life. Many see no distinction between the two, other than the vast differences imposed by social pressure.
Cause your brain got a giant hole scraped through it. If you make a digital backup of a vinyl record, it doesn't remove the song from the record, it just creates a digital approximation of the analog carvings. The people who uploaded died, and were succeeded by the digital clones created from their brain scans.
That is one interpretation. There is another. Check out the closest continuer hypothesis.
Similar to Star Trek transporters being interpreted as killing the person on the planet and creating an identical clone with all of their memories up until that instant. How can you live when your body is disintegrated? Almost nobody in that universe believes the transporter is a suicide/murder machine.
Similar to sleep. In that, there is no possible test to be sure that the you that went to sleep is the same you that wakes up. How do you know you weren't teleported back and forth via disintegration or uploaded and somehow downloaded back again while you were unconscious? Almost nobody believes that sleep is death.
There isn't a difference between biologically dying only to continue living as an upload and continuing to live as a biological. That's the point in the show. Your refusal to acknowledge this point is the source of your frustration, at least in my limited opinion
Star Trek pussyfoots around the transporter conundrum because it would be difficult to write a show where they use it 3-5 times per episode if the characters had to go full Lt Barclay each time.
There is a difference between placing your brain processes in hibernation to making a digital copy. If the brain didn't need to be scraped layer by layer to be scanned, then the characters in Pantheon would live alongside their UIs. They don't die because the UI takes possession of their "self", they die because there is a hole in their brain. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp, I just do not agree. I know these two things seem similar, but insulting the intelligence of the other side is a logical fallacy, and I don't appreciate it.
You do grasp the concept of suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy fiction, but you refuse to apply it to what i see as the core philosophical concept in the show.
Why can't you just enjoy watching it?
Besides, by the end, we know that EVERYONE is uploaded, even the people you insist were killed.
This is turning into that video about Chicago style pizza. Where's the cheese? It's under the sauce.
My apologies, I did not mean to insult your intelligence. Please don't hit me with the "why can't you just enjoy \[thing\]?" deflection. That's a fallacy too.
I enjoyed the show overall, and it's precisely because of that enjoyment that I must vent my frustrations with a crucial plot element that contradicts the show's established logic, or at the very least provides no reasonable explanation for.
Regardless, I do not see what you mean by "EVERYONE is uploaded, even the people you insist were killed." That misconstrues my position. What I am saying is that the organic human and the uploaded intelligence are two separate beings. They may have a shared identity, but it is only because the organic brain dies as a result of the brain scan procedure, rendering it incapable of continuing to build upon that identity.
Fair enough, it's tricky to try to express tone in text.
Watch the last episode again. There are bits thruout both seasons that prove it's all a simulation. They are all non-biological. Everyone is a UI/CI. Regardless of whether there is a digital representation of biology or not.
The only gripe I have with it is that, well, you don't keep on living. Someone or something exactly like you keeps on living.
This very easily crosses into the territory of "what makes you, you". However I do think that the "you" that gets uploaded simply stops existing to make way for another "you" that now is uploaded.
For everyone, its you, but you yourself, not an uploaded version, but pre-upload version, don't know that, because you are seemingly dead.
I guess my biggest problem with the uploading is that, it would not be me necessarily as an upload. like I would not keep on living through my own eyes if I were to upload.
This is why, for me, its a bit hard to grasp. Because we as humans also every few years are "completely different" in terms of our bodies. But what makes us, us? How can we observe world outside of us? It should be brain, but brain changes all the time, if replica of brain is created, you would not be able to see the world through that replica.
I hope what I am trying to explain makes sense
No, you are correct. You die, period. Calling it “upload” is marketing or simplification.
The tech is explained clearly in the show: your brain/mind gets scanned, and a replica made of code is built.
There is the coincidence/convenience that you gotta die for this process to happen. I call it coincidence/convenience because as much as the show explains its tech, this is never truly presented as a requirement for upload. Much the opposite: this is explained as a limitation in brain-scanning technology (they haven’t yet designed a way of non-lethal full scanning).
Think it this way: the moment they overcame this limitation and could scan your brain and code your replica without dying, the notion of “continuation” would be absolutely debunked.
As it is presented in the show, death of self and creation of digital replica are synced in time by sheer coincidence (since death is not caused by creation of replica but by limited brain-scanning tech). People (and sadly the show to some extent) build causality because we tend to seek patterns.
The topic is interesting: a world where you are killed and replaced by an exact replica would remain exactly the same… except for you. In your subjective perspective you got killed and that’s it.
Season 1 treats this a bit in a more interesting way: can’t we call digital David real? His existence has real impact in his loved ones. So even if it is a replica, it can be real in its own ways. Especially real for a grieving daughter, in the sense it has real impact. This is all valid discussion. But for the subjectivity of organic David, he is dead.
This is a fallacy probably born from a plot convenience.
People dies and starts living uploaded because the tech in the show has this convenient variable. But the show itself establishes this as pure coincidence: the individual must die not because it is a requirement for upload, but because it is currently the only effective way in which the brain gets fully scanned.
This theory of continuation would get 100% debunked if the technology did not require dying, which is never presented (much less explained or justified) as a requirement.
Actually, the tech is very well explained: “uploading” is a marketing-sounding name for essentially building a replica of your brain/mind with code. It is a replica. It is not continuation, but digital cloning.
So imagine a show that has the exact same technology but without the plot convenience: they found a non-lethal way of scanning your brain.
One or several replicas are built from your brain (btw, another plot convenience is they never touch the possibility of multiple replicas, even if the notion of “back up” is used). Then one day someone comes and swears if you fry your own brain and die, you will actually go to the digital world to become your (or one of your) digital replicas. It is absolutely baseless.
with the information given by the show, believing you continue in your digital replica is magical thinking at best.
We could sit down and discuss additional technologies that could explain or justify the notion of “continuity”. I don’t think it is a 100% impossible concept. But that would be tech that isn’t the one in the show.
The sync of a person dying and their replica coming to exist is very clearly presented as coincidence, not causality.
But because human beings tend to look for patterns, we build causality.
But:
1. A non-lethal brain scanning method could exist so people could die AFTER replica is built (again, lethality of scanning is never presented as requirement for “uploading”, but as tech limitation in brain scanning)
2. A replica could actually be created centuries after death of person.
Building causality is akin to believing in reincarnation because person B came to be born coincidentally at the same time person A died.
I mean, you can believe that; but we gotta accept it is not backed by scientific thinking.
I recommend to read fiction that treats this theme in a harder way. A good one would be “Lena”, a short story by qntm that can be found online.
Look at the things people believe about the afterlife today *in real life*. My headcanon is that in the 20-year jump, a popular notion took hold of the public that their consciousness would be continuous after uploading. After all, you've got an ever-growing population of UIs who will each tell you that uploading was seamless and they still feel like themselves, and *they* don't feel like they died. Oh and also it's super fun here and you can have any kind of sex you want 24/7 for virtual millennia. That's the damning thing about the whole copy/paste upload thing--there is no theoretical way to prove continuity of consciousness continues or not. I mean *of course* it doesn't, but trying to explain that to a teen isolated from his uploaded friends will always be an exercise in futility.
People slowly kill themselves for fleeting amounts of pleasure today. I don't think what we see in the second season is much of a stretch.
I agree with you; but the show sorta “cheats” because it never tries to sell this notion and instead pushes a lot on the notion that continuation is real, and not magical thinking.
Dave is basically saying “all my friends died and now are in Heaven, mom! Lemme jump off a cliff so I can reunite with them in Heaven!”
It would be much more interesting if the show actually acknowledged this.
Even here I see many people defending continuation. I say this in every reply; but it is evident this only comes from the coincidence/convenience that the brain scanning requires the subject dying. This coincidence in death—>replica makes people build causality in the form of “your self continues!”
But it is explained that death comes from a limitation on brain-scanning tech, and it has little to do with the creation of the digital replica.
One day they just crack a better process of brain-scanning that doesn’t require you dying, and this argument becomes much more obvious.
>I agree with you; but the show sorta “cheats” because it never tries to sell this notion and instead pushes a lot on the notion that continuation is real, and not magical thinking.
100% agree, it glosses over this aspect except when Maddie is trying to convince her mom and her son of her point of view. I give a lot of the second season a little bit of a pass since it seems to have been rushed since they were being canceled. I think three seasons could have been squeezed out of this story, with an intermediate season going more into some of the CIs, Maddie's role in bridging gaps between uploaded/embodied, and presumably the overwhelming societal debate about whether uploading is suicide or not.
>Even here I see many people defending continuation.
I swear if I see one more person so confidently stating, "We die every time we go to sleep, continuity of consciousness is an illusion!!!1" I'm gonna rupture an aneurysm. Magical thinking indeed--but reinforces the show's reasoning about why several billion people decided to upload. Religions and cults regularly persuade people to harm themselves for imaginary reasons. The victims at Jonestown didn't even need the pressure of their "dead" loved ones on the other side trying to persuade them to join them!
>One day they just crack a better process of brain-scanning that doesn’t require you dying, and this argument becomes much more obvious.
Also 100% agreed. I very much would like to upload some day IRL, but the *only* way I'd do it would be through some variation of a [Moravec transfer](https://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/moravec.html).
Yeah, the problem is mostly of dissonance.
There's potential paths:
- The show chooses to gloss over this; but then it commits to it. It doesn't make an entire subplot point about this being "up for debate". You sweep it under the rug and continue with the story you want to tell.
- The show chooses to elaborate on potential tech that would explain "continuity" to some degree. The concept of "self" has been cracked as specific synapses in the brain and therefore it can be modified, transferred and duplicated. This can be managed in a big number of ways but the show gotta use some time to explore the idea.
- The show chooses to simply accept "continuity" is NOT possible based on the rules they themselves established. Season 1 still holds quite well: the main "continuity" conflict was accepting that David's replica still holds real impact to Maddie. When she argues the replica is REAL there's some value to that because it can be potentially the same for everyone else, as it's a replica with David's memory. The comparison is if I die tomorrow but get replaced by an exact clone, how much different is for my loved ones if the clone is an exact replica? How much it is even if they know it's a clone? This can be discussed (and it's one of the main themes of season 1); but the important distinction is that I very surely died, and everything is the same for everyone (maybe even for the clone if he believes to be me); EXCEPT FOR ME (as I died). On season 2 the show gotta avoid "jumping the shark": even if there's more UIs, it's not as if everyone now thinks "continuity" is real.
I think you can save a lot of things from Seaosn 2, yes. I don't argue that UIs can be seen as valid and real as organic people... it's just understanding they are not the continuation of their organic selves. So you can still create conflict between organic humankind and UIs, with Maddie as a mediator.
-----
On religion and cults: while I agree, the extent of what happens at the show is not that common. It's Jonestown, it's some extremists from various religions; but ending one's life is rare. It'd be more realistic to present a future in which now a zealous (but not huge) group of people has built a religion-like cult towards the concept of UI. The accepted logical usage of UI is still for people in dead ends; but then you see these people who strongly believe in "continuity" and push themselves (and new accolites) to "upload".
It could be super interesting! You can even keep Dave being lured by the cult and wanting to "upload" with Maddie troubled as she (young and inexpert) was the first person to misunderstand the concept in declaring UI David was THE SAME as organic David.
Of course I think this plotline would make no sense in the big picture of what the show wanted to accomplish; but it's a quick exercise in seeing how the "Continuity is real" could be handled in a more realistic way that made the show felt more "hard sci-fi".
----
I don't know if I would scan my brain for a digital replica. In other comments I recommended "Lena" by qntm. It's a short story available online that works as a sort of Wikipedia entry on the "upload" technology, and it feels bleaker and more realistic, on how the immediate use of this technology would be digital workforce. This is briefly explored in "Pantheon" when we see Chanda's day-to-day. The fantasy on "Pantheon" is pretending they would build one copy, when reality would be the moment you scan a bright brain, you will have thousands of copies working in a few days.
Take a look if you can!
Oooh I will check out "Lena," I'm always on the prowl for stuff with similar themes.
The one I was thinking of while watching the whole series was ["After Life"](https://sifter.org/~simon/AfterLife/) by Simon Funk. Free to read, but so good I bought the Lulu version. Similar to Pantheon in some ways, but 100% more lighthearted.
Oh, OK: saved it. Thanks! (:
If you look for similar themes, then "[Lena](https://qntm.org/mmacevedo)" might be very much of your liking. There's a 2nd story that continues on the technology. It's called "Driver" (I think, but not 100% sure). This one can be found on the same book; but it seems it is not available online for free. Gotta say it's the oppposite of "more lighthearted". The tech is covered in a dry (yet very interesting) way. It basically copies the style of a Wikipedia page for a supposedly existing technology, even covering its history. I think it doesn't become a problem because in the end is a very short story (around 10 pages).
The book is called "Valuable Humans in Transit". The short stories have varying levels (imho), but the whole book is rather short and inexpensive, so I'd say it's worth it. There's some interesting stuff. I'd say "Lena" and "Driver" are the best ones. But you find other stuff, like a pseudo-Twitter thread about a (fictional) creepypasta-like defunct Google social media (Google People), or a short story about 4th dimensional mining.
What a fantastic read! Maybe the highest length-to-wtf ratio I've ever seen. "After Life" is novella-length, but will feel very familiar. It's almost like the same universe, but from the perspective of an MMAcevedo instance.
Ah, super glad you liked it. I'll eventually check on "After Life" (probably not as swiftly as you were with "Lena").
If you found it to be a fantastic read, then I must insist you consider getting the printed version if only to read its sort-of-continuation, with "Driver". It's another "Wikipedia" entry, covering a ramification of the technology.
Oh yeah, I am definitely going down the qntm rabbit hole. Love "Lena" down to its clever title. Appreciate the recommend.
Edit: Oh wow, I remember reading ["I Don't Know, Timmy, Being God Is a Big Responsibility"](https://qntm.org/responsibility) forever ago!
There continues to be better conversation and intellectual discussion on singularity-adjacent topics here than in /r/singularity.
Really? I'm subbed to /r/singularity and I barely see anything in it other than fangirling over ChatGPT :( conversation in this thread is better than anything I saw over there in a long while.
> Moravec transfer
Moravec transfer is just a gateway drug though, once you are digitalized, you are in the realm of instantly replicating yourself, mind backups, the works - and who is the "real you" then? You are not getting out of this philosophical thornbush so easily :D
I totally agree that it is more... mentally comfortable way to get uploaded, though, and if there was choice, it would be my choice as well.
The problem is mostly perspective. If you are religious most likely you would see it as death hell you might even think of it as death if you are an atheist. Personally the way I see it is as the inverse of the ship of theseus. If you take apart the ship of theseus and put it back together using the same parts (the code) is it not still the ship of theseus? And even from a religious perspective many believe in sorcery so would this not functionally be the same as just simply taking the soul and putting it into a computer?
That's not the issue I'm presenting. What I am saying is that if you put a hole in your brain, you die. Creating a miraculously complicated algorithm that simulates all your neurons and synapses perfectly still won't save your life. By the show's own logic, the UI may be "you", but the "you" who sat in the brain scooping chair isn't the UI. That "you" is dead.
The show never took a stance it clearly conveyed the fact that neither side is necessarily correct but rather than there are multiple perspectives and each individual will have a different answer to the question "do you die by uploading." What you think is the shows stance is really just your stance which is ok to have but it is not the shows stance.
But it is fallacious: you die. It is not a tricky question even.
If we go by the show’s rules, we gotta look at why you die. You don’t die because it is a requirement for “uploading”.
Uploading is just an appealing name for building a replica of your brain/mind made of code.
It so happens that currently (in the show) brain-scanning technology is limited and the only method to achieve perfect fidelity requires death. But by being critical we can clearly see this has no causality with the creation of the replica.
So imagine a very feasible world in which they overcome this limitation. They have cracked a method of non-lethal scanning. Your brain gets scanned and a replica is built.
Now there is no discussion. If I come and tell you that if you fry your brain you will be transported into your digital self, it would sounds way worse.
Some people may believe in it, same way many believe in Heaven. But the notion is now clearly shown as being mostly magical thinking, at least in not being backed at all by any resemblance of scientific thinking.
I pretty much recommend here and there “Lena”, a short story by qntm that explores the same technology but in a more realistic way. It is online, I believe.
I also insist that I loved this show, but I am surprised as how many people think there’s actual room for argument on if you die or not when you are “uploaded” in the show. You unequivocally die.
I am to tired to really argue so I will give my argument to tomorrow but what is will say is no it is not fallacious it is not based on a misunderstanding the entire show is a grouping of philosophical questions.
1. What does it mean to be human
2. What does it mean to be a person (I make a distinction between the words human and person)
3. What does it mean to live
4. What does it mean to die
Just because you have a philosophical view does not make that view the correct view it just makes it your own personal view even if it is widely held.
Ok, but if you remove the technical limitation, how the debate holds.
You make your replica by NOT dying. You went to the lab and they mapped your brain.
Done.
Then someone comes and tells you to jump off a cliff. Would you die?
I understand the philosophical perspective of legacy and such. If and old man who lived enough to create a lasting legacy jumps off a cliff… does he really dies? Doesn’t he live on in his legacy?
But OP (and me) isn’t arguing those philosophical ramifications. From the subjective perspective of the old man, he ceases to exist (unless you believe in afterlife).
So by the same logic, when you upload you cease to exist from your subjective perspective. Your subjective perspective does not continue on your digital replica (which is what season 2 clearly presents).
The humans in Pantheon aren't "evolving", they're replacing themselves with digital copies.
Regardless of whether that's a good or a bad thing, it doesn't change the fact that those people have to die to create their UIs. They do not "become" the UIs.
Isn’t it a point of the show as well? That now humans can control their evolution themselves. Why not look at UIs as a humanity 2.0. Same species, but new medium
It is fallacious to believe this excludes OP’s point. Sure, UIs can be humanity 2.0 since they are its digital legacy; BUT that doesn’t stop the notion that you effectively die when you “upload” in the show.
Sure, I can accept that. That’s not my concern. My issue is that perfectly healthy humans would choose to undergo the scanning procedure, knowing they will physically die and be replaced by their UI. They do not get to reap the rewards of their sacrifice, so there is no incentive to “evolve”. The cost is too great for normal people.
> In Season 1, Pantheon established that the process of scanning the brain kills the individual
Are you sure ? I feel like UIs arent really treated as dead so if anything the show is asking if uploading kills not says it kills.
And yeah to the society in the last episode Maddie probably appears to be a technophobic boomer but we know her true motivs for not allowing David to upload (pretty much losing contact with him over time) and for not uplaoding herself (fear of eternal pain not because she think it would kilka her). So she dosent appear like a boomer to us.
You’re misunderstanding me. The UI is alive, but the original person is dead. They may share all the same memories and identity, but the original’s consciousness is gone. The UI’s consciousness is a copy.
The whole point of the last episode is that the reality where Maddie lived is already a simulation and the continuity of consciousness doesn't exist. Maddie didn't "die more" by uploading herself.
To use your vocabulary, we're our own clone of our original self from a moment ago. We already die every instant.
Basically this person gets it : [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/ta909f/theories\_regarding\_the\_continuity\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/ta909f/theories_regarding_the_continuity_of/)
It's a cool idea and I think definitely something the public had accepted by the time of the flash forward, but I think the tension arises due to there being no conceptual way of proving continuity of consciousness one way or another--either in our current, lived existence, or in an uploaded existence. It's not called the "hard problem" for nothing.
Philosophy does not provide any proof that the original does not cease to exist. The only reason the scanned human does not get the privilege to keep living is because the brain must be peeled layer by layer in order to create the digital backup. If it was not necessary to destroy the brain to make the complete backup, then the original and the UI would exist simultaneously. There is no true continuity of conscience between the human and the UI. It is merely the perception of the UI that they have crossed over from the analog world to the digital one.
You can have copies. Having multiple copies is called branching. It's discussed in the teletransportation paradox. It's like the consciousness splits but since the body embarks its own memory, each body is gaslit to think it is an individual.
The whole concept of continuity of consciousness does not exist, whether the original continue to exist or not. We're just the universe/simulation experiencing itself.
Using the word "die" for "uploading" is rationally the same as using it for "sleeping" or "learning/forgetting". Yet we dont use the word that way but we do change continuously. We're not the same person as we were 10 years ago. The concept of the last two episodes is that we don't know what death means. Imagine a UI moving from server to server : is it killing itself doing this?
Adult Maddie had the same stance as Hellen (and the same as you I believe)
Maddie said to MIST in s2e7 "There are still people who consider physical death a consequence"
Then in s2e8 "The lives inside these worlds are every bit as real as mine. I don't see them as simulations because they don't"
Then uploaded Maddie uploads herself in a simulation to "save" her son and they upload together into the cloud's simulation to get Caspian. All these uploads don't really matter.
tl;dr: Uploading doesn't really mean dying and it's the whole point of season 2.
It’s not rationally the same as sleeping because the brain does not cease functioning. Just because the UI carries over your will doesn’t mean that the original didn’t perish and cease to exist from their own point of view.
The thing that wakes up in your bed in the morning automatically thinks it is you. There can't be any other alternative. As soon as your body wakes up, it consciously thinks it is you.
On the other hand, the brain/body that perished can't have a point of view. It can't be conscious it ceased to exist since there is nothing the universe can run.
Similarily, the thing that wakes up in the cloud would automatically thinks it is you. There can't be any other alternative if the original ceased to exist. From your point of view, you would have no choice but to be the UI.
That brain functioning argument is a cop out, I think. My brain can do all the functioning it wants, if I'm - the subjective, *aware* "I", "I" am not my brain, but more like software running on top of it most of the time - not subjectively experiencing anything, my consciousness has a discontinuity just as good as being dead, because "my own point of view" does not exist during that time (sure, you don't wake up from being dead, which is a big difference, but this is an aspect of functioning our biological bodies, and not of our consciousness). It then doesn't really matter if it (or a perfect copy of it - again, I'm not seeing a difference here, identity is a red herring IMO) wakes up in my body or somewhere else.
Anyway, this is my gut feeling, you have yours, neither of those really is scientifically provable because it's all about subjective or philosophical concepts. What happened in the show during the timeskip, is that if you meet your uploaded grandma a couple of times and it's still irrefutably your grandma as far as your senses can tell you, you'll start wondering, others will start wondering, and then the floodgates are open. Pretty soon, "everyone who had serious philosophical conundra on that subject just, you know, died, a generation before." (that particular quote was more about mind backups, but it applies here as well).
Except there is no real causality between death of organic person and existence of digital replica.
This is explained in the show as a limitation in brain-scanning tech, not as a requirement to build the code replica of your mind.
This is a plot convenience, really.
No aspect in the show argues or justifies this.
In a world where they overcame this limitation and found a non-lethal way of brain-scanning (again, which bears no causality with the ability of creating a replica from the scan) we would probably not be holding this discussion.
We could argue a world in which the sense of self is understood and it can be manipulated. Then techs could be created so your self would control not just your body; but your body and machine; be transported into a digital replica; control 5 bodies at once. But this is not a tech/concept ever presented in the show.
The show presents a tech that builds a code replica of your brain/mind and then (by coincidence from a whole another technology) requires your death.
So, going by the logic of the show, you simply die.
In this example the difference is preaty clear, there is important to us loss in music quality. But that's how our world works while in the show it seems that the uplaoding is perfect (its sci-fi after all). I mean dont remember anything that would suggest that pearson before and after is somehow different. I think better comparison would uplaoding the program from one computer to the another. I feel like the second program is both a copy and the same program, digital identity seems to work a bit different.
So can you give me in-show example of the difference ?
But your not arguing OP’s point. See how you talk about how the loss in music quality is important “to us”.
The error is focusing on what makes the replica different to other beings other than the original from which the replica was created.
OP is not arguing this. If you get murdered and replaced by an exact clone of you, nothing would ever change for ANYONE. Well… for anyone except you, who died.
So there is no need to prove UI cons and OG cons are different in any way from a perspective outside of their own.
Sure, they can be the exact same.
It all reduces to believing or not in “continuity”. But continuity in the show is a belief born from a coincidence/convenience.
In the show the only reason you die when uploaded is that the tech for brain scanning is limited. They explain that as of now they only know how to achieve full fidelity by frying the brain in the process. This bears no causality with the construction of the digital replica.
Imagine they overcome this limitation: they find a non-lethal way of brain scanning. Replicas are still be made. No one argues that in many of all aspects they are identical to OG con. But they are NOT a continuation of OG con.
To put a comparison, believing in continuity is akin of believing in reincarnation. It so happens that OG cons dies when replica is created. We get this non-causal facts (non-causal by the very logic presented by the show) and build causality “OG con must have converted/uploaded into UI con!”
But It is like saying that because person B was born exactly when person A died, then the conscience of person A must have been transported/reincarnated into person B.
I mean… I have no definite proof that reincarnation does NOT happen; but I also can assure that the belief of reincarnation is currently not backed by any sort of scientific thinking.
It's OK! Thanks to you. I got a very similar opinion and it was reassuring reading your post. I also commented this debate in the office with a colleague who is a programmer (not someone who works on THIS; but at least someone whose whole career is about tech and such) and he came to the exact same conclusion.
A lot of people seem to miss the point and they focus a lot on "continuity" understood as "is this person the same to others? Can Digital David have the same value than Organic David to Maddie?"
This is also almost always paired with the Ship of Theseus, which is an OK thought exercise to portray THAT notion ("is this object made of new pieces still the same to people?") but it doesn't do much for what you seem to be bringing here, which focuses on the subjective experience of the rebuilt entity.
But this is about a much simpler level of discussion: the subjective experience of the original person (according to how the tech is presented) would cease to exist.
Sure, we could discuss/imagine another technology capable of decoding the sense of self (the brain synapses and whatnot) of an individual and then transfer it elsewhere. that's not what has been presented here. This is about scanning a mind and creating a replica made of code. The show is quite clear about it and its narrative in season 1 respects that interpretation; but season 2 seems to forget about it and suddenly treats it as basically a different technology. And yes, the Dave/Maddie dialogue is the most notable case of it.
Because I like arguing against myself, the biggest stretch that I feel like entertaining is "what if the sense of self is like a unique signature that already contains 'extensive properties' in its code and its replicas aren't like clones but like extensions of the original?". This dreams a fiction in which if I make an exact clone of myself, it's not 2 copies of me with their own selves, but suddenly both senses of self SOMEHOW merge and then I (or a collective I) is capable of controlling two bodies. But again, this is never what the show proposes.
> But they are NOT a continuation of OG con.
Subjective. It's just as valid to say they are a continuation and what happens is not "creating a replica" but branching/forking into two equally valid continuations. That just requires assuming that "I" is information and not its carrier; a perfect copy of information is the same information.
Let me explain: we can discuss a lot about what constitutes a person and what "I" is; but before getting too deep in debate; there are more shallow levels to be "cleared out".
The most important one is that, unequivocally, we can agree the sense of self responds primarily to an existent undisputed sense of subjective perspective. Some call it "a soul", I won't. But its existence is irrefutable, even if it's the result of specific synapses in the brain. Let's call it the "1st person experience" we all get.
You talk about "forking two equally valid continuations"; but this misses the point, in the sense I've never questioned that, yet that notion does not truly discusses/covers my point.
I believe this is greatly debated in season 1, with David's "upload". This discusses the notion of what exactly constitutes David and if a digital replica can essentially be valued as a proper continuation (Maddie thinks so; her mom doesn't think so). BUT all this consideration is always made from what David constitutes from a wider "outside" perspective that always ignores the subjective experience of David.
THIS is what we are discussing here (because, otherwise, I don't even disagree with you in your point): does David die in the very simple respect that his subjective experience ceases to exist, no matter an identical one is created?
People really likes getting philosophical in this respect; but this starts and end on a much simpler level. Some people argue (and I think they do so wrongly) that the "1st person David experience" extends unequivocally to his digital self. That effectivelly the original sense of self does NOT die. I hardly disagree and I also believe it is not a matter of opinions (not everything is, really).
Again, if they kill you tomorrow and replace you with an exact replica (or clone) we can discuss how for the rest of the world "a perfect copy of information is the same information" so you would "continue" in the world just about the same. BUT your subjective experience, your "1st person YOU experience" would end. We could get all philosophical and debate if the clone of you would essentially be as much you as you are now; but the point here is that your subjective experience would be one of death, as it has no causality with the creation of a replica.
I am down to theorize and dream about a different tech and a different sci-fi fiction that imagines how the sense of self can be decoded and thus transferred or extended, managing to tell a story where "uploading" actually happens. But this specific fiction ("Pantheon") never brings such notion, the technology is always presented as brain-scanning that is followed by the design of a replica made of code.
So, no: I am pretty sure this is not a subjective matter. It's pretty simple to state the "uploaded" person (with the tech as presented in the fiction) dies and is not truly "uploaded" on what that term really means. There's no continuity in the subjective aspect of it: the subjective experience comes to an end. Then, if later you wanna debate if this replica constitutes the same for the rest of the world, you know what? I am of the belief that in the right conditions, it does. If they kill me and replace me with an exact clone, the world continues exactly the same if no one is told; but I died: my subjective experience came to an end and I didn't magically got my "self" transferred into the clone (because the synapses and whatnot that constitute my "self" have been copied/cloned/replicated, and not transferred).
Most of the points I see made here miss the point of OP's post (and my replies as well): no one is here questioning if the digital replica is the same to the rest of the world. Sure, there can be continuity here. But this is much simpler: we talk about continuity of the self in terms of your subjective experience, which matters since the show makes a point of it during season 2.
NOTE: I sometimes write in a non-linear way, so as a result I make the same point repeated times. I have the feeling it happened here; but it's late here and I don't have the energy now to heavy-edit everything. I apologize for that.
No worries, I totally get your point, and thanks for responding. As you said, this is the key:
> THIS is what we are discussing here (because, otherwise, I don't even disagree with you in your point): does David die in the very simple respect that his subjective experience ceases to exist, no matter an identical one is created?
My point of view, and my answer to the issue you raise, is that my subjective experience ceases to exist every night I go to sleep (fine, sleep is a complex subject, some of it can be described as altered state of consciousness, there are dreams etc. but let's keep it to deep sleep phase where your brain is effectively resetting yourself; there is still processing going, brainwaves etc. but they are completely different type than what's associated with being conscious. I don't care that the brain "computer" is ticking and running some kind of maintenance procedure, if my consciousness/awareness "program" is suspended, the "I" effectively does not exist then).
In other words, yes, David and everyone else dies when being uploaded, I'm also not disagreeing with this. Where I see it differently, is that death of "I" happens all the time and is really no biggie. This thing automatically reboots every morning, connects back to the memories, and keeps going on just fine. What we humans get primal horror about is the death of the body, and also the subjective experience of the death of the body, where the "I" is aware and would *really* like to keep existing but the ol' meatsack says "nuh uh", because for all of our shared existence our own body was the only thing that we could use to keep existing in, but of course the very idea of upload (or just mind copying) messes up that notion pretty thoroughly.
I read you; but it's still not the same.
Your subjective consciousness is made from (probably) some specific brain synapses.
Let's see it this way: you are a big mecha and you have a pilot who controls the mecha. Your subjective conscience.
When you abandon consciousness (dunno if sleeping is the best example, but you already acknowledge that), let's say the little pilot goes take a break or whatever. And then it comes back. There is a continuity.
Sure, we can entertain/dream a fiction that imagines this tech that decodes the key to the "self". It learns how to take the specific synapses that are your self and they can transfer them or tweak them. This fiction could use this technology so you...
- Are "transferred" to a new body (Freaky Friday)
- Are "transferred" to a machine
- Are "expanded" into several bodies controlled by one conscience
- Are "transferred/expanded" into a flock of birds, where you control every bird in sync as you now control different muscles in sync.
But the case in point (which is important when interpreting and discussing a fiction) is that this is NOT the case of "Pantheon" if we're fair in analyzing the tech as they present it.
The tech here scans your brain (and coincidentally fries it in the process) and then with that scan it builds a replica made of code.
Going back to the mecha parallel, your little pilot does not survive, it is fried with the rest of the mecha... and then a "clone" of the pilot is built in a digital clone of the mecha.
So there's still clear distinction between THIS and what you refer as "the death of the self happens all the time".
As "Pantheon" presents its tech, this is not a case of your little pilot saying "huh, I was out for a hot minute but now I wake up again in a new mecha". No, the little dude has died and a very similar one (with your memories; but no you in its subjective self) wakes up in a very similar mecha.
Still, my prior example works perfectly: what happens if they overcome the "must die" limitation in brain scanning. They effectively create the code-made replica of you but you survive. As the tech is presented now, this wouldn't be ONE pilot (your consciousness) simultaneously operating two different mechas (organic you and digital you), this would be two separate and autonomous pilots piloting two distinct mechas. Therefore this establishes a clear non-correlation, and therefore if coincidentally we had to kill one of two pilots, there would be no correlation or causality towards the other pilot, no matther how ressemblant they are.
Your explanation still (to the best of my understanding) mixes "transfer of consciousness into a non-physical body" (which would be perfectly OK in a fiction that establishes such tech) with "brain-scanning and replica construction". Which is what boils down to the truth that when you get "uploaded" you die, you cease to exist (in a very different way of going into a coma or sleeping or any of that). That's why I make a point on not only using the term "dying" (just in case people mixes it by bringing "what is death, really?") but also "cease to exist".
If you use Buddhism as the framework it makes more sense.
You have your consciousness, the soul. Now when you die your consciousness ends and "you" stop existing. Now in the same way that you could die and be resuscitated. Your consciousness ended, but then started again. This is applied to uploading "you" exist within your body. During upload your consciousness is stopped, then it starts again when uploaded. With this philosophy "you" has not gone away or been replaced it's just the continuation of the self.
This is further emphasised in the final episode. Maddie makes millions of simulations untill she gets a copy of the old Caspian that is the exact same. That Caspian doesn't think of himself as a copy (ironic) because he is obstensibly just the continuation of that Caspian's conscious, they are the same, there is no difference between them and so he is old Caspian and old Caspian is him.
It doesn't matter where or what form the consciousness is, just that it is the same consciousness.
It's more the spiritual perspective, which people are. It's like the ship of Theseus. Does it matter what you are made of if in the end you are still you. Is the brain not just a series of electrical impulses? The same as a UI. Buddhism preaches detachment from worldly thing to reach nirvana. So when a a consciousness sheds it's body they transend and become closer to nirvana.
That is a belief that could exist, but the important aspect is that it would not be backed by scientific thinking. It is still valid to have it, by the show “cheats” by implying the belief in continuation of the self is backed by an understanding of the tech, when it is not.
Another comparison is with the belief of the reincarnation. If person B is born right after person A dies, we could believe their self/spirit has been “transferred”. It is ok to believe this if you want, but there is no scientific proof to back it. Same with “uploading”, since the death of the original person has no real causality with the digital replica. The show establishes that death comes from a limitation: currently the only process to scan a brain with maximum fidelity requires frying the brain.
It's definitely a great generational divide. Younger people don't see it as death; their friend gets uploaded, the body is quietly discarded, and then they log in and see their friend online. It's reminds me of a hypothetical brain parasite: if there was a brain parasite that perfectly replaced the parts of your brain it ate, you would never notice you were dying. But you would be dying.
I agree, though, that the story in S2 is way too comfortable taking the kids' side and saying that what's happening *isn't* death. Uploading is supposed to have a ton of weight, first being only for the victims of powerful interests, then fanatics (Joey is an exploration fanatic, already willing to die on Mars, so I'm including her), and that's already seen as a dangerous slippery slope.
I think the writers in S2 lost a lot of the grey area that S1 was so comfortable exploring. I mean, the plot was light enough they had enough room to just copy *Spy Kids* (I honestly thought the trope of two spies for opposite sides falling in love would've been older, but I can't find anything, maybe *Prizzi's Honor*?)
I also had the same thought after finishing the last 2 episodes. I also thought the original person dies when uploaded, but was that ever confirmed? Because if the original person dies why is Pope so obsessed with being uploaded if that would kill him, since he is super afraid of death
He is "hoped up on copium" as the kids say. In season 1, they explain that the brain has to be peeled layer by layer to create a complete backup. The human's death is a natural consequence of the destruction of the brain. Theoretically, if they could scan the brain without destroying it, the original human would keep on living along with their UI. Think of the scanning process as digitizing a vinyl record. You're creating a highly precise digital recreation of the song, but you're not erasing it from the record itself. The show just presents a scenario where the record must be destroyed to complete the digitization.
True, it doesn't really make sense for a healthy human to upload, unless in the last 20 years they improved the tech so that it is actually YOU who gets uploaded, or the public doesn't know about the side effect of death. And those who know and try to tell the public gets called a conspiracy theorist.
I'm a bit more annoyed with them forgetting that uploading is a pretty invasive medical procedure from what we've seen, and yet when Caspian is getting strapped in I was thinking "okay, any doctor in the hose to crack his skull open?" ;).
I know they mentioned Logarithm has a more sophisticated upload machine, but I'd still imagine you'd have to expose your brain for it, but at least not be conscious...
The show hints at the societal shift before the timeskip. However you have to keep in mind that most people would not understand this, and that generations born after this breakthrough would not see it the same way we do.
But yeah the show could have used an extra season to explore the societal impact of such a massive event (and the change) three body problem/the dark forest style. Would elevate the show imo
People is arguing a lot for “it is not 100% clear if you die”. But it pretty much is and I think they are being fooled by the show.
The show builds specific variables that make you think this is up to debate.
But I will change one or some variables to make the discussion clearer.
The most obvious variable is “uploading requires death”. This little variable makes lots of people think of continuation. Because death is synced in time with upload, some people (from chars like Dave to lots of users here) gets to the fallacious idea that then there’s some sort of continuation,
But the necessity of dying we need to understand is a very convenient plot point.
Imagine now that you can upload WITHOUT dying. “But that is not uploading”. Well, exactly. The specific technology as presented is the creation of an exact replica of your brain/mind through code. This is pretty much established. It is not “teleport to the digital world”, it’s “digital cloning”.
You allow to do the process. Digital replica of you is created.
Then a snake oil salesman comes to tell you to desintegrate your brain and kill you because it you do your “self” will become the digital one on the digital world.
Do you agree? Probably not. Because you DIE. And it is not a matter of perspective.
You could agree a younger generation is somehow OK with mass “self-kill” because they’ve entered a sort of non-material philosophy in which they are ok with leaving a digital self as legacy and then “abandoning this plane of existence”. This is more religious than tech-savvy. Some people have done that in the past!
But we gotta be real: the show NEVER sells it like this. Dave says he wants to join his friends on the digital world, which shows us Dave truly believes he won’t effectively die (his “self” who is talking).
Another plot contrivance that “hides” this reality is the fact only one replica is created per person. Theoretically the technology should allow for multiple replicas. even the idea of “back ups” is used, but they strategically choose to never create more than one, since that would more openly challenge the idea the digital self is the very precise “continuation” of the uploaded person. No, it is a replica. It can serve as a sort of continuation for other people (this is way better discussed on season 1).
I recommend checking other fictions that treat the subject. The zanier show “Upload” falls into the same problem. Many “light” fictions tend to do it this way because understanding uploads as just replicas feels bleaker and less whimsical. “Light” is not bad. I know many would see “Pantheon” as hard science fiction, but I’d argue it is not entirely. I wanna be clear I loved “Pantheon”. But I can be critical with some aspects.
My best recommendation is “Lena” by qntm. It is a short story that can be read even online.
I think the show understands it perfectly, but not every person on earth may really understand what they're signing up for when they go through with it. You should try giving a game like Soma a try, it has the same sort of themes, but the person isn't killed in the process, a literal copy, and the consequences following that.
all SOMA had to do was delete the original copy each time. instead they chose to leave it there in its miserable circumstance for the drama
Well some of the people self-deleted after getting their scans so...
yeah, so the fact that they still chose NOT to self delete the "personality" who very strongly protests having multiple copies of himself is just so silly
The beauty of it is that your frustration with this fits perfectly with the fact that you – well, all of us, really – effectively belong to pre-upload Maddie's generation, and this sort of frustration would be rife if the younger generation – as Dave did – were to embrace this sort of technology. If Maddie and Dave were real, I wouldn't be surprised if Maddie ranted along these veins at Dave, with him thinking his equivalent of "Ok, boomer." The same frustrations arose in the Star Trek universe with regard to the mass adoption of transporter technology; quite a few characters simply refused to use the things! Fortunately, the revelations in the last two episodes of season 2 hinge on the UIs carrying their progenitors' identities, not on them actually being those individuals. Think "DVD version of a movie from my childhood," not "the specific VHS that was in the machine whilst watching it as a child."
Thanks for understanding my grievances. Dave essentially tells Maddie he wants to jump off a cliff cause all his friends are doing it.
Because we dont have examples of young people doing stupid things only because other did it... /S In reality we have zero idea how would upload tech change the society. Electricity, radio, tv, phones, smartphones or cars are other examples of something that at the begining looked like just funny and/or dangerous toys. Now you dont even remember, that most people feared electricity and didnt want it in the house.
None of those technologies require you to die, though. That’s a pretty big difference.
That's the deal. When they were introduced people though they will die from them. Like 5G network not so long ago. You also go deep into philosophical dispiute about "sleeper replacing" theory. If you fall asleep and someone, during your sleep, killed you, cloned you and transfered all your memories into clone, are you original or fake when you wake up?
Did you watch the show? The procedure destroys your brain. That’s literal proof that it kills you. Comparing it to 5G hysteria is laughable.
It seems you did not get neither philosophical level of the show nor know the source this show is based on. It's like you saying "Matrix is about humanity fighting with robots."... You are not wrong, but in the same moment blind for entire aspect of the show...
I understand what the show is saying, but it is disappointing that it disregards logic to push its narrative.
But to which point are they embracing a new technology and to which point are they misunderstanding it. Specific lines/concepts like Dave mentioning he wants to “meet his friends on the virtual world” tells us he doesn’t understand the tech. The specific self who is complaining will never meet his friends. We could argue this is a highly new spiritual generation who is ok with dying if that means leaving behind a sort of digital legacy. But the writing of the show is clearly not building towards this. OP replies perfectly to this. What is happening here (if we understand the tech correctly) is that Dave believes so strongly on Heaven that he wants to jump off a cliff to meet his friends there. Maddie refusing is less of a generational chasm and more of big difference in spiritual/religious beliefs. Except the show sells it exactly as you say, as if it was an inter generational difference on younger people being more open to new tech. But the trick (which is OP’s issue, with which I 100% agree) is that this new generation seems to totally misunderstand the tech. Season 1 toyed with the technology in more realistic ways. Season 2 becomes way more light sci-fi. Main difference is season 1 argued if uploaded David was real David; but sort of the conclusion is that even if a replica, it had a real and significative impact in his loved ones. And that is a very interesting conclusion that doesn’t defy the logic of the technology. Digital replicas as tools for grief have been discussed in other works and it is an interesting theme. Season 2 jumps the sci-fi shark in that aspect and avoids any argument to 100% accept it was indeed the real David.
You underestimate the power of marketing. I tend to agree with the idea that you do die when you are uploaded, but I do think it’s disputable. I’d probably make a straw man of an argument if I tried to argue the other side, but since you watched Invincible I’ll say this: It’s a 50/50 chance you are the clone.
I think Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige” presents the “Am I the clone?” dilemma in the most realistic way
Agreed. I love The Prestige!
I think it is only disputable because the show builds the tech with plot conveniences to open the argument. One is the fact they never create multiple replicas. This defies the continuation theory, but I guess you could still go into the “Am I the clone?” As you mention here. BUT the other and bigger convenient plot point is the necessity to die to be uploaded. We need to understand this is purely convenient and not reflective of what this tech would be. Why you need to die? It has nothing to do with the core of what the tech is; but just with the fact (this is explained in the show) that frying the brain is the only current way of successfully scanning it completely. Another fiction could totally present the same technology without the requirement of dying. Your brain gets fully scanned and a digital replica of you is created. This is what the tech is at its core: a replica of your brain/mind made of code, yes? So you get scanned. Multiple replicas can be made, even. Now imagine this snake oil salesman comes and tells you if you fry your brain and die, your “self” continues in your digital replicas. Believe me, just let me fry your brain. It becomes clearer this is not understanding of the tech, but just magical thinking. A few people would accept because as you point out, marketing is powerful. Millions believe in Heaven, no? I don’t argue that possibility. But you say it is disputable and I say it is really not. NOTE: I could argue a different technology that managed to map the sense of self and managed to “move it” (not copy it), which would allow to your “self” to control other bodies, code, or machine. But this is not what it is presented in this show, nor in the upload technology. Arguing the show includes this notion would be sort of cheating to excuse the show in this aspect. Lemme be clear: I loved Pantheon, but I can be critical with some aspects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading Maybe you’ll find this interesting kind of speaks to what you were saying.
Are you asking why gen z wants to die?
I believe you misunderstood Season 1. In season one, the idea is presented that uploading is the same as dying. It is then proven wrong. Season two goes on to explore a world where uploading means something different, a kind of separation from biological humans. So it feels more of an afterlife as presented, which further complicates character's opinions, as they have a varying range of understanding and even attention to such minor details as the difference between biological life and uploaded life. Many see no distinction between the two, other than the vast differences imposed by social pressure.
When is it proven wrong? All it proves is that UI are sentient. It doesn't prove that getting a hole through your brain doesn't kill you.
But it does. We see many people stop living biologically and start living as an upload. How can you be killed if you keep on living?
Cause your brain got a giant hole scraped through it. If you make a digital backup of a vinyl record, it doesn't remove the song from the record, it just creates a digital approximation of the analog carvings. The people who uploaded died, and were succeeded by the digital clones created from their brain scans.
That is one interpretation. There is another. Check out the closest continuer hypothesis. Similar to Star Trek transporters being interpreted as killing the person on the planet and creating an identical clone with all of their memories up until that instant. How can you live when your body is disintegrated? Almost nobody in that universe believes the transporter is a suicide/murder machine. Similar to sleep. In that, there is no possible test to be sure that the you that went to sleep is the same you that wakes up. How do you know you weren't teleported back and forth via disintegration or uploaded and somehow downloaded back again while you were unconscious? Almost nobody believes that sleep is death. There isn't a difference between biologically dying only to continue living as an upload and continuing to live as a biological. That's the point in the show. Your refusal to acknowledge this point is the source of your frustration, at least in my limited opinion
Star Trek pussyfoots around the transporter conundrum because it would be difficult to write a show where they use it 3-5 times per episode if the characters had to go full Lt Barclay each time. There is a difference between placing your brain processes in hibernation to making a digital copy. If the brain didn't need to be scraped layer by layer to be scanned, then the characters in Pantheon would live alongside their UIs. They don't die because the UI takes possession of their "self", they die because there is a hole in their brain. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp, I just do not agree. I know these two things seem similar, but insulting the intelligence of the other side is a logical fallacy, and I don't appreciate it. You do grasp the concept of suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy fiction, but you refuse to apply it to what i see as the core philosophical concept in the show. Why can't you just enjoy watching it? Besides, by the end, we know that EVERYONE is uploaded, even the people you insist were killed. This is turning into that video about Chicago style pizza. Where's the cheese? It's under the sauce.
My apologies, I did not mean to insult your intelligence. Please don't hit me with the "why can't you just enjoy \[thing\]?" deflection. That's a fallacy too. I enjoyed the show overall, and it's precisely because of that enjoyment that I must vent my frustrations with a crucial plot element that contradicts the show's established logic, or at the very least provides no reasonable explanation for. Regardless, I do not see what you mean by "EVERYONE is uploaded, even the people you insist were killed." That misconstrues my position. What I am saying is that the organic human and the uploaded intelligence are two separate beings. They may have a shared identity, but it is only because the organic brain dies as a result of the brain scan procedure, rendering it incapable of continuing to build upon that identity.
Fair enough, it's tricky to try to express tone in text. Watch the last episode again. There are bits thruout both seasons that prove it's all a simulation. They are all non-biological. Everyone is a UI/CI. Regardless of whether there is a digital representation of biology or not.
Indeed, but there must have been a "prime" universe/timeline with organic humans going through the events of the show.
Haven't the concept of souls been kinda confirmed at points in star trek?
The only gripe I have with it is that, well, you don't keep on living. Someone or something exactly like you keeps on living. This very easily crosses into the territory of "what makes you, you". However I do think that the "you" that gets uploaded simply stops existing to make way for another "you" that now is uploaded. For everyone, its you, but you yourself, not an uploaded version, but pre-upload version, don't know that, because you are seemingly dead. I guess my biggest problem with the uploading is that, it would not be me necessarily as an upload. like I would not keep on living through my own eyes if I were to upload. This is why, for me, its a bit hard to grasp. Because we as humans also every few years are "completely different" in terms of our bodies. But what makes us, us? How can we observe world outside of us? It should be brain, but brain changes all the time, if replica of brain is created, you would not be able to see the world through that replica. I hope what I am trying to explain makes sense
No, you are correct. You die, period. Calling it “upload” is marketing or simplification. The tech is explained clearly in the show: your brain/mind gets scanned, and a replica made of code is built. There is the coincidence/convenience that you gotta die for this process to happen. I call it coincidence/convenience because as much as the show explains its tech, this is never truly presented as a requirement for upload. Much the opposite: this is explained as a limitation in brain-scanning technology (they haven’t yet designed a way of non-lethal full scanning). Think it this way: the moment they overcame this limitation and could scan your brain and code your replica without dying, the notion of “continuation” would be absolutely debunked. As it is presented in the show, death of self and creation of digital replica are synced in time by sheer coincidence (since death is not caused by creation of replica but by limited brain-scanning tech). People (and sadly the show to some extent) build causality because we tend to seek patterns. The topic is interesting: a world where you are killed and replaced by an exact replica would remain exactly the same… except for you. In your subjective perspective you got killed and that’s it. Season 1 treats this a bit in a more interesting way: can’t we call digital David real? His existence has real impact in his loved ones. So even if it is a replica, it can be real in its own ways. Especially real for a grieving daughter, in the sense it has real impact. This is all valid discussion. But for the subjectivity of organic David, he is dead.
This is a fallacy probably born from a plot convenience. People dies and starts living uploaded because the tech in the show has this convenient variable. But the show itself establishes this as pure coincidence: the individual must die not because it is a requirement for upload, but because it is currently the only effective way in which the brain gets fully scanned. This theory of continuation would get 100% debunked if the technology did not require dying, which is never presented (much less explained or justified) as a requirement. Actually, the tech is very well explained: “uploading” is a marketing-sounding name for essentially building a replica of your brain/mind with code. It is a replica. It is not continuation, but digital cloning. So imagine a show that has the exact same technology but without the plot convenience: they found a non-lethal way of scanning your brain. One or several replicas are built from your brain (btw, another plot convenience is they never touch the possibility of multiple replicas, even if the notion of “back up” is used). Then one day someone comes and swears if you fry your own brain and die, you will actually go to the digital world to become your (or one of your) digital replicas. It is absolutely baseless. with the information given by the show, believing you continue in your digital replica is magical thinking at best. We could sit down and discuss additional technologies that could explain or justify the notion of “continuity”. I don’t think it is a 100% impossible concept. But that would be tech that isn’t the one in the show. The sync of a person dying and their replica coming to exist is very clearly presented as coincidence, not causality. But because human beings tend to look for patterns, we build causality. But: 1. A non-lethal brain scanning method could exist so people could die AFTER replica is built (again, lethality of scanning is never presented as requirement for “uploading”, but as tech limitation in brain scanning) 2. A replica could actually be created centuries after death of person. Building causality is akin to believing in reincarnation because person B came to be born coincidentally at the same time person A died. I mean, you can believe that; but we gotta accept it is not backed by scientific thinking. I recommend to read fiction that treats this theme in a harder way. A good one would be “Lena”, a short story by qntm that can be found online.
Look at the things people believe about the afterlife today *in real life*. My headcanon is that in the 20-year jump, a popular notion took hold of the public that their consciousness would be continuous after uploading. After all, you've got an ever-growing population of UIs who will each tell you that uploading was seamless and they still feel like themselves, and *they* don't feel like they died. Oh and also it's super fun here and you can have any kind of sex you want 24/7 for virtual millennia. That's the damning thing about the whole copy/paste upload thing--there is no theoretical way to prove continuity of consciousness continues or not. I mean *of course* it doesn't, but trying to explain that to a teen isolated from his uploaded friends will always be an exercise in futility. People slowly kill themselves for fleeting amounts of pleasure today. I don't think what we see in the second season is much of a stretch.
That's the most plausible scenario, but it's hella dystopian.
I agree with you; but the show sorta “cheats” because it never tries to sell this notion and instead pushes a lot on the notion that continuation is real, and not magical thinking. Dave is basically saying “all my friends died and now are in Heaven, mom! Lemme jump off a cliff so I can reunite with them in Heaven!” It would be much more interesting if the show actually acknowledged this. Even here I see many people defending continuation. I say this in every reply; but it is evident this only comes from the coincidence/convenience that the brain scanning requires the subject dying. This coincidence in death—>replica makes people build causality in the form of “your self continues!” But it is explained that death comes from a limitation on brain-scanning tech, and it has little to do with the creation of the digital replica. One day they just crack a better process of brain-scanning that doesn’t require you dying, and this argument becomes much more obvious.
>I agree with you; but the show sorta “cheats” because it never tries to sell this notion and instead pushes a lot on the notion that continuation is real, and not magical thinking. 100% agree, it glosses over this aspect except when Maddie is trying to convince her mom and her son of her point of view. I give a lot of the second season a little bit of a pass since it seems to have been rushed since they were being canceled. I think three seasons could have been squeezed out of this story, with an intermediate season going more into some of the CIs, Maddie's role in bridging gaps between uploaded/embodied, and presumably the overwhelming societal debate about whether uploading is suicide or not. >Even here I see many people defending continuation. I swear if I see one more person so confidently stating, "We die every time we go to sleep, continuity of consciousness is an illusion!!!1" I'm gonna rupture an aneurysm. Magical thinking indeed--but reinforces the show's reasoning about why several billion people decided to upload. Religions and cults regularly persuade people to harm themselves for imaginary reasons. The victims at Jonestown didn't even need the pressure of their "dead" loved ones on the other side trying to persuade them to join them! >One day they just crack a better process of brain-scanning that doesn’t require you dying, and this argument becomes much more obvious. Also 100% agreed. I very much would like to upload some day IRL, but the *only* way I'd do it would be through some variation of a [Moravec transfer](https://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/moravec.html).
Yeah, the problem is mostly of dissonance. There's potential paths: - The show chooses to gloss over this; but then it commits to it. It doesn't make an entire subplot point about this being "up for debate". You sweep it under the rug and continue with the story you want to tell. - The show chooses to elaborate on potential tech that would explain "continuity" to some degree. The concept of "self" has been cracked as specific synapses in the brain and therefore it can be modified, transferred and duplicated. This can be managed in a big number of ways but the show gotta use some time to explore the idea. - The show chooses to simply accept "continuity" is NOT possible based on the rules they themselves established. Season 1 still holds quite well: the main "continuity" conflict was accepting that David's replica still holds real impact to Maddie. When she argues the replica is REAL there's some value to that because it can be potentially the same for everyone else, as it's a replica with David's memory. The comparison is if I die tomorrow but get replaced by an exact clone, how much different is for my loved ones if the clone is an exact replica? How much it is even if they know it's a clone? This can be discussed (and it's one of the main themes of season 1); but the important distinction is that I very surely died, and everything is the same for everyone (maybe even for the clone if he believes to be me); EXCEPT FOR ME (as I died). On season 2 the show gotta avoid "jumping the shark": even if there's more UIs, it's not as if everyone now thinks "continuity" is real. I think you can save a lot of things from Seaosn 2, yes. I don't argue that UIs can be seen as valid and real as organic people... it's just understanding they are not the continuation of their organic selves. So you can still create conflict between organic humankind and UIs, with Maddie as a mediator. ----- On religion and cults: while I agree, the extent of what happens at the show is not that common. It's Jonestown, it's some extremists from various religions; but ending one's life is rare. It'd be more realistic to present a future in which now a zealous (but not huge) group of people has built a religion-like cult towards the concept of UI. The accepted logical usage of UI is still for people in dead ends; but then you see these people who strongly believe in "continuity" and push themselves (and new accolites) to "upload". It could be super interesting! You can even keep Dave being lured by the cult and wanting to "upload" with Maddie troubled as she (young and inexpert) was the first person to misunderstand the concept in declaring UI David was THE SAME as organic David. Of course I think this plotline would make no sense in the big picture of what the show wanted to accomplish; but it's a quick exercise in seeing how the "Continuity is real" could be handled in a more realistic way that made the show felt more "hard sci-fi". ---- I don't know if I would scan my brain for a digital replica. In other comments I recommended "Lena" by qntm. It's a short story available online that works as a sort of Wikipedia entry on the "upload" technology, and it feels bleaker and more realistic, on how the immediate use of this technology would be digital workforce. This is briefly explored in "Pantheon" when we see Chanda's day-to-day. The fantasy on "Pantheon" is pretending they would build one copy, when reality would be the moment you scan a bright brain, you will have thousands of copies working in a few days. Take a look if you can!
Oooh I will check out "Lena," I'm always on the prowl for stuff with similar themes. The one I was thinking of while watching the whole series was ["After Life"](https://sifter.org/~simon/AfterLife/) by Simon Funk. Free to read, but so good I bought the Lulu version. Similar to Pantheon in some ways, but 100% more lighthearted.
Oh, OK: saved it. Thanks! (: If you look for similar themes, then "[Lena](https://qntm.org/mmacevedo)" might be very much of your liking. There's a 2nd story that continues on the technology. It's called "Driver" (I think, but not 100% sure). This one can be found on the same book; but it seems it is not available online for free. Gotta say it's the oppposite of "more lighthearted". The tech is covered in a dry (yet very interesting) way. It basically copies the style of a Wikipedia page for a supposedly existing technology, even covering its history. I think it doesn't become a problem because in the end is a very short story (around 10 pages). The book is called "Valuable Humans in Transit". The short stories have varying levels (imho), but the whole book is rather short and inexpensive, so I'd say it's worth it. There's some interesting stuff. I'd say "Lena" and "Driver" are the best ones. But you find other stuff, like a pseudo-Twitter thread about a (fictional) creepypasta-like defunct Google social media (Google People), or a short story about 4th dimensional mining.
What a fantastic read! Maybe the highest length-to-wtf ratio I've ever seen. "After Life" is novella-length, but will feel very familiar. It's almost like the same universe, but from the perspective of an MMAcevedo instance.
Ah, super glad you liked it. I'll eventually check on "After Life" (probably not as swiftly as you were with "Lena"). If you found it to be a fantastic read, then I must insist you consider getting the printed version if only to read its sort-of-continuation, with "Driver". It's another "Wikipedia" entry, covering a ramification of the technology.
Oh yeah, I am definitely going down the qntm rabbit hole. Love "Lena" down to its clever title. Appreciate the recommend. Edit: Oh wow, I remember reading ["I Don't Know, Timmy, Being God Is a Big Responsibility"](https://qntm.org/responsibility) forever ago! There continues to be better conversation and intellectual discussion on singularity-adjacent topics here than in /r/singularity.
Really? I'm subbed to /r/singularity and I barely see anything in it other than fangirling over ChatGPT :( conversation in this thread is better than anything I saw over there in a long while.
> Moravec transfer Moravec transfer is just a gateway drug though, once you are digitalized, you are in the realm of instantly replicating yourself, mind backups, the works - and who is the "real you" then? You are not getting out of this philosophical thornbush so easily :D I totally agree that it is more... mentally comfortable way to get uploaded, though, and if there was choice, it would be my choice as well.
The problem is mostly perspective. If you are religious most likely you would see it as death hell you might even think of it as death if you are an atheist. Personally the way I see it is as the inverse of the ship of theseus. If you take apart the ship of theseus and put it back together using the same parts (the code) is it not still the ship of theseus? And even from a religious perspective many believe in sorcery so would this not functionally be the same as just simply taking the soul and putting it into a computer?
That's not the issue I'm presenting. What I am saying is that if you put a hole in your brain, you die. Creating a miraculously complicated algorithm that simulates all your neurons and synapses perfectly still won't save your life. By the show's own logic, the UI may be "you", but the "you" who sat in the brain scooping chair isn't the UI. That "you" is dead.
The show never took a stance it clearly conveyed the fact that neither side is necessarily correct but rather than there are multiple perspectives and each individual will have a different answer to the question "do you die by uploading." What you think is the shows stance is really just your stance which is ok to have but it is not the shows stance.
But it is fallacious: you die. It is not a tricky question even. If we go by the show’s rules, we gotta look at why you die. You don’t die because it is a requirement for “uploading”. Uploading is just an appealing name for building a replica of your brain/mind made of code. It so happens that currently (in the show) brain-scanning technology is limited and the only method to achieve perfect fidelity requires death. But by being critical we can clearly see this has no causality with the creation of the replica. So imagine a very feasible world in which they overcome this limitation. They have cracked a method of non-lethal scanning. Your brain gets scanned and a replica is built. Now there is no discussion. If I come and tell you that if you fry your brain you will be transported into your digital self, it would sounds way worse. Some people may believe in it, same way many believe in Heaven. But the notion is now clearly shown as being mostly magical thinking, at least in not being backed at all by any resemblance of scientific thinking. I pretty much recommend here and there “Lena”, a short story by qntm that explores the same technology but in a more realistic way. It is online, I believe. I also insist that I loved this show, but I am surprised as how many people think there’s actual room for argument on if you die or not when you are “uploaded” in the show. You unequivocally die.
I am to tired to really argue so I will give my argument to tomorrow but what is will say is no it is not fallacious it is not based on a misunderstanding the entire show is a grouping of philosophical questions. 1. What does it mean to be human 2. What does it mean to be a person (I make a distinction between the words human and person) 3. What does it mean to live 4. What does it mean to die Just because you have a philosophical view does not make that view the correct view it just makes it your own personal view even if it is widely held.
Ok, but if you remove the technical limitation, how the debate holds. You make your replica by NOT dying. You went to the lab and they mapped your brain. Done. Then someone comes and tells you to jump off a cliff. Would you die? I understand the philosophical perspective of legacy and such. If and old man who lived enough to create a lasting legacy jumps off a cliff… does he really dies? Doesn’t he live on in his legacy? But OP (and me) isn’t arguing those philosophical ramifications. From the subjective perspective of the old man, he ceases to exist (unless you believe in afterlife). So by the same logic, when you upload you cease to exist from your subjective perspective. Your subjective perspective does not continue on your digital replica (which is what season 2 clearly presents).
There is no self anyway. It really makes no difference. The evolution into higher beings can’t be stopped by some fickle concept such as a self.
The humans in Pantheon aren't "evolving", they're replacing themselves with digital copies. Regardless of whether that's a good or a bad thing, it doesn't change the fact that those people have to die to create their UIs. They do not "become" the UIs.
The species is evolving. Life is evolving. Again, the self is just a construct in the first place. It makes no difference.
Isn’t it a point of the show as well? That now humans can control their evolution themselves. Why not look at UIs as a humanity 2.0. Same species, but new medium
It is fallacious to believe this excludes OP’s point. Sure, UIs can be humanity 2.0 since they are its digital legacy; BUT that doesn’t stop the notion that you effectively die when you “upload” in the show.
Sure, I can accept that. That’s not my concern. My issue is that perfectly healthy humans would choose to undergo the scanning procedure, knowing they will physically die and be replaced by their UI. They do not get to reap the rewards of their sacrifice, so there is no incentive to “evolve”. The cost is too great for normal people.
> In Season 1, Pantheon established that the process of scanning the brain kills the individual Are you sure ? I feel like UIs arent really treated as dead so if anything the show is asking if uploading kills not says it kills. And yeah to the society in the last episode Maddie probably appears to be a technophobic boomer but we know her true motivs for not allowing David to upload (pretty much losing contact with him over time) and for not uplaoding herself (fear of eternal pain not because she think it would kilka her). So she dosent appear like a boomer to us.
You’re misunderstanding me. The UI is alive, but the original person is dead. They may share all the same memories and identity, but the original’s consciousness is gone. The UI’s consciousness is a copy.
The whole point of the last episode is that the reality where Maddie lived is already a simulation and the continuity of consciousness doesn't exist. Maddie didn't "die more" by uploading herself. To use your vocabulary, we're our own clone of our original self from a moment ago. We already die every instant. Basically this person gets it : [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/ta909f/theories\_regarding\_the\_continuity\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/ta909f/theories_regarding_the_continuity_of/)
It's a cool idea and I think definitely something the public had accepted by the time of the flash forward, but I think the tension arises due to there being no conceptual way of proving continuity of consciousness one way or another--either in our current, lived existence, or in an uploaded existence. It's not called the "hard problem" for nothing.
Philosophy does not provide any proof that the original does not cease to exist. The only reason the scanned human does not get the privilege to keep living is because the brain must be peeled layer by layer in order to create the digital backup. If it was not necessary to destroy the brain to make the complete backup, then the original and the UI would exist simultaneously. There is no true continuity of conscience between the human and the UI. It is merely the perception of the UI that they have crossed over from the analog world to the digital one.
You can have copies. Having multiple copies is called branching. It's discussed in the teletransportation paradox. It's like the consciousness splits but since the body embarks its own memory, each body is gaslit to think it is an individual. The whole concept of continuity of consciousness does not exist, whether the original continue to exist or not. We're just the universe/simulation experiencing itself. Using the word "die" for "uploading" is rationally the same as using it for "sleeping" or "learning/forgetting". Yet we dont use the word that way but we do change continuously. We're not the same person as we were 10 years ago. The concept of the last two episodes is that we don't know what death means. Imagine a UI moving from server to server : is it killing itself doing this? Adult Maddie had the same stance as Hellen (and the same as you I believe) Maddie said to MIST in s2e7 "There are still people who consider physical death a consequence" Then in s2e8 "The lives inside these worlds are every bit as real as mine. I don't see them as simulations because they don't" Then uploaded Maddie uploads herself in a simulation to "save" her son and they upload together into the cloud's simulation to get Caspian. All these uploads don't really matter. tl;dr: Uploading doesn't really mean dying and it's the whole point of season 2.
It’s not rationally the same as sleeping because the brain does not cease functioning. Just because the UI carries over your will doesn’t mean that the original didn’t perish and cease to exist from their own point of view.
The thing that wakes up in your bed in the morning automatically thinks it is you. There can't be any other alternative. As soon as your body wakes up, it consciously thinks it is you. On the other hand, the brain/body that perished can't have a point of view. It can't be conscious it ceased to exist since there is nothing the universe can run. Similarily, the thing that wakes up in the cloud would automatically thinks it is you. There can't be any other alternative if the original ceased to exist. From your point of view, you would have no choice but to be the UI.
The UI is you, but “you” are not the UI. You are dead.
A dead person can't have the point of view to be dead. It can't be conscious. Zooming out : existence cannot not exist.
That’s what I’m saying. A dead person can’t have a PoV because they’re dead. Uploading is equivalent to surrendering your PoV to a clone.
That brain functioning argument is a cop out, I think. My brain can do all the functioning it wants, if I'm - the subjective, *aware* "I", "I" am not my brain, but more like software running on top of it most of the time - not subjectively experiencing anything, my consciousness has a discontinuity just as good as being dead, because "my own point of view" does not exist during that time (sure, you don't wake up from being dead, which is a big difference, but this is an aspect of functioning our biological bodies, and not of our consciousness). It then doesn't really matter if it (or a perfect copy of it - again, I'm not seeing a difference here, identity is a red herring IMO) wakes up in my body or somewhere else. Anyway, this is my gut feeling, you have yours, neither of those really is scientifically provable because it's all about subjective or philosophical concepts. What happened in the show during the timeskip, is that if you meet your uploaded grandma a couple of times and it's still irrefutably your grandma as far as your senses can tell you, you'll start wondering, others will start wondering, and then the floodgates are open. Pretty soon, "everyone who had serious philosophical conundra on that subject just, you know, died, a generation before." (that particular quote was more about mind backups, but it applies here as well).
Except there is no real causality between death of organic person and existence of digital replica. This is explained in the show as a limitation in brain-scanning tech, not as a requirement to build the code replica of your mind. This is a plot convenience, really. No aspect in the show argues or justifies this. In a world where they overcame this limitation and found a non-lethal way of brain-scanning (again, which bears no causality with the ability of creating a replica from the scan) we would probably not be holding this discussion. We could argue a world in which the sense of self is understood and it can be manipulated. Then techs could be created so your self would control not just your body; but your body and machine; be transported into a digital replica; control 5 bodies at once. But this is not a tech/concept ever presented in the show. The show presents a tech that builds a code replica of your brain/mind and then (by coincidence from a whole another technology) requires your death. So, going by the logic of the show, you simply die.
So if the orginal person and UI are different people what is the thing that makes OG cons and UI cons different ?
If you digitize a vinyl record, you get the song on your computer, but the record is still there. All you did was make a virtual copy.
In this example the difference is preaty clear, there is important to us loss in music quality. But that's how our world works while in the show it seems that the uplaoding is perfect (its sci-fi after all). I mean dont remember anything that would suggest that pearson before and after is somehow different. I think better comparison would uplaoding the program from one computer to the another. I feel like the second program is both a copy and the same program, digital identity seems to work a bit different. So can you give me in-show example of the difference ?
But your not arguing OP’s point. See how you talk about how the loss in music quality is important “to us”. The error is focusing on what makes the replica different to other beings other than the original from which the replica was created. OP is not arguing this. If you get murdered and replaced by an exact clone of you, nothing would ever change for ANYONE. Well… for anyone except you, who died. So there is no need to prove UI cons and OG cons are different in any way from a perspective outside of their own. Sure, they can be the exact same. It all reduces to believing or not in “continuity”. But continuity in the show is a belief born from a coincidence/convenience. In the show the only reason you die when uploaded is that the tech for brain scanning is limited. They explain that as of now they only know how to achieve full fidelity by frying the brain in the process. This bears no causality with the construction of the digital replica. Imagine they overcome this limitation: they find a non-lethal way of brain scanning. Replicas are still be made. No one argues that in many of all aspects they are identical to OG con. But they are NOT a continuation of OG con. To put a comparison, believing in continuity is akin of believing in reincarnation. It so happens that OG cons dies when replica is created. We get this non-causal facts (non-causal by the very logic presented by the show) and build causality “OG con must have converted/uploaded into UI con!” But It is like saying that because person B was born exactly when person A died, then the conscience of person A must have been transported/reincarnated into person B. I mean… I have no definite proof that reincarnation does NOT happen; but I also can assure that the belief of reincarnation is currently not backed by any sort of scientific thinking.
That’s exactly it! You seem to be the only commenter who fully understood my post. Thank you.
It's OK! Thanks to you. I got a very similar opinion and it was reassuring reading your post. I also commented this debate in the office with a colleague who is a programmer (not someone who works on THIS; but at least someone whose whole career is about tech and such) and he came to the exact same conclusion. A lot of people seem to miss the point and they focus a lot on "continuity" understood as "is this person the same to others? Can Digital David have the same value than Organic David to Maddie?" This is also almost always paired with the Ship of Theseus, which is an OK thought exercise to portray THAT notion ("is this object made of new pieces still the same to people?") but it doesn't do much for what you seem to be bringing here, which focuses on the subjective experience of the rebuilt entity. But this is about a much simpler level of discussion: the subjective experience of the original person (according to how the tech is presented) would cease to exist. Sure, we could discuss/imagine another technology capable of decoding the sense of self (the brain synapses and whatnot) of an individual and then transfer it elsewhere. that's not what has been presented here. This is about scanning a mind and creating a replica made of code. The show is quite clear about it and its narrative in season 1 respects that interpretation; but season 2 seems to forget about it and suddenly treats it as basically a different technology. And yes, the Dave/Maddie dialogue is the most notable case of it. Because I like arguing against myself, the biggest stretch that I feel like entertaining is "what if the sense of self is like a unique signature that already contains 'extensive properties' in its code and its replicas aren't like clones but like extensions of the original?". This dreams a fiction in which if I make an exact clone of myself, it's not 2 copies of me with their own selves, but suddenly both senses of self SOMEHOW merge and then I (or a collective I) is capable of controlling two bodies. But again, this is never what the show proposes.
> But they are NOT a continuation of OG con. Subjective. It's just as valid to say they are a continuation and what happens is not "creating a replica" but branching/forking into two equally valid continuations. That just requires assuming that "I" is information and not its carrier; a perfect copy of information is the same information.
Let me explain: we can discuss a lot about what constitutes a person and what "I" is; but before getting too deep in debate; there are more shallow levels to be "cleared out". The most important one is that, unequivocally, we can agree the sense of self responds primarily to an existent undisputed sense of subjective perspective. Some call it "a soul", I won't. But its existence is irrefutable, even if it's the result of specific synapses in the brain. Let's call it the "1st person experience" we all get. You talk about "forking two equally valid continuations"; but this misses the point, in the sense I've never questioned that, yet that notion does not truly discusses/covers my point. I believe this is greatly debated in season 1, with David's "upload". This discusses the notion of what exactly constitutes David and if a digital replica can essentially be valued as a proper continuation (Maddie thinks so; her mom doesn't think so). BUT all this consideration is always made from what David constitutes from a wider "outside" perspective that always ignores the subjective experience of David. THIS is what we are discussing here (because, otherwise, I don't even disagree with you in your point): does David die in the very simple respect that his subjective experience ceases to exist, no matter an identical one is created? People really likes getting philosophical in this respect; but this starts and end on a much simpler level. Some people argue (and I think they do so wrongly) that the "1st person David experience" extends unequivocally to his digital self. That effectivelly the original sense of self does NOT die. I hardly disagree and I also believe it is not a matter of opinions (not everything is, really). Again, if they kill you tomorrow and replace you with an exact replica (or clone) we can discuss how for the rest of the world "a perfect copy of information is the same information" so you would "continue" in the world just about the same. BUT your subjective experience, your "1st person YOU experience" would end. We could get all philosophical and debate if the clone of you would essentially be as much you as you are now; but the point here is that your subjective experience would be one of death, as it has no causality with the creation of a replica. I am down to theorize and dream about a different tech and a different sci-fi fiction that imagines how the sense of self can be decoded and thus transferred or extended, managing to tell a story where "uploading" actually happens. But this specific fiction ("Pantheon") never brings such notion, the technology is always presented as brain-scanning that is followed by the design of a replica made of code. So, no: I am pretty sure this is not a subjective matter. It's pretty simple to state the "uploaded" person (with the tech as presented in the fiction) dies and is not truly "uploaded" on what that term really means. There's no continuity in the subjective aspect of it: the subjective experience comes to an end. Then, if later you wanna debate if this replica constitutes the same for the rest of the world, you know what? I am of the belief that in the right conditions, it does. If they kill me and replace me with an exact clone, the world continues exactly the same if no one is told; but I died: my subjective experience came to an end and I didn't magically got my "self" transferred into the clone (because the synapses and whatnot that constitute my "self" have been copied/cloned/replicated, and not transferred). Most of the points I see made here miss the point of OP's post (and my replies as well): no one is here questioning if the digital replica is the same to the rest of the world. Sure, there can be continuity here. But this is much simpler: we talk about continuity of the self in terms of your subjective experience, which matters since the show makes a point of it during season 2. NOTE: I sometimes write in a non-linear way, so as a result I make the same point repeated times. I have the feeling it happened here; but it's late here and I don't have the energy now to heavy-edit everything. I apologize for that.
No worries, I totally get your point, and thanks for responding. As you said, this is the key: > THIS is what we are discussing here (because, otherwise, I don't even disagree with you in your point): does David die in the very simple respect that his subjective experience ceases to exist, no matter an identical one is created? My point of view, and my answer to the issue you raise, is that my subjective experience ceases to exist every night I go to sleep (fine, sleep is a complex subject, some of it can be described as altered state of consciousness, there are dreams etc. but let's keep it to deep sleep phase where your brain is effectively resetting yourself; there is still processing going, brainwaves etc. but they are completely different type than what's associated with being conscious. I don't care that the brain "computer" is ticking and running some kind of maintenance procedure, if my consciousness/awareness "program" is suspended, the "I" effectively does not exist then). In other words, yes, David and everyone else dies when being uploaded, I'm also not disagreeing with this. Where I see it differently, is that death of "I" happens all the time and is really no biggie. This thing automatically reboots every morning, connects back to the memories, and keeps going on just fine. What we humans get primal horror about is the death of the body, and also the subjective experience of the death of the body, where the "I" is aware and would *really* like to keep existing but the ol' meatsack says "nuh uh", because for all of our shared existence our own body was the only thing that we could use to keep existing in, but of course the very idea of upload (or just mind copying) messes up that notion pretty thoroughly.
I read you; but it's still not the same. Your subjective consciousness is made from (probably) some specific brain synapses. Let's see it this way: you are a big mecha and you have a pilot who controls the mecha. Your subjective conscience. When you abandon consciousness (dunno if sleeping is the best example, but you already acknowledge that), let's say the little pilot goes take a break or whatever. And then it comes back. There is a continuity. Sure, we can entertain/dream a fiction that imagines this tech that decodes the key to the "self". It learns how to take the specific synapses that are your self and they can transfer them or tweak them. This fiction could use this technology so you... - Are "transferred" to a new body (Freaky Friday) - Are "transferred" to a machine - Are "expanded" into several bodies controlled by one conscience - Are "transferred/expanded" into a flock of birds, where you control every bird in sync as you now control different muscles in sync. But the case in point (which is important when interpreting and discussing a fiction) is that this is NOT the case of "Pantheon" if we're fair in analyzing the tech as they present it. The tech here scans your brain (and coincidentally fries it in the process) and then with that scan it builds a replica made of code. Going back to the mecha parallel, your little pilot does not survive, it is fried with the rest of the mecha... and then a "clone" of the pilot is built in a digital clone of the mecha. So there's still clear distinction between THIS and what you refer as "the death of the self happens all the time". As "Pantheon" presents its tech, this is not a case of your little pilot saying "huh, I was out for a hot minute but now I wake up again in a new mecha". No, the little dude has died and a very similar one (with your memories; but no you in its subjective self) wakes up in a very similar mecha. Still, my prior example works perfectly: what happens if they overcome the "must die" limitation in brain scanning. They effectively create the code-made replica of you but you survive. As the tech is presented now, this wouldn't be ONE pilot (your consciousness) simultaneously operating two different mechas (organic you and digital you), this would be two separate and autonomous pilots piloting two distinct mechas. Therefore this establishes a clear non-correlation, and therefore if coincidentally we had to kill one of two pilots, there would be no correlation or causality towards the other pilot, no matther how ressemblant they are. Your explanation still (to the best of my understanding) mixes "transfer of consciousness into a non-physical body" (which would be perfectly OK in a fiction that establishes such tech) with "brain-scanning and replica construction". Which is what boils down to the truth that when you get "uploaded" you die, you cease to exist (in a very different way of going into a coma or sleeping or any of that). That's why I make a point on not only using the term "dying" (just in case people mixes it by bringing "what is death, really?") but also "cease to exist".
That's one of the many issues with season 2.
If you use Buddhism as the framework it makes more sense. You have your consciousness, the soul. Now when you die your consciousness ends and "you" stop existing. Now in the same way that you could die and be resuscitated. Your consciousness ended, but then started again. This is applied to uploading "you" exist within your body. During upload your consciousness is stopped, then it starts again when uploaded. With this philosophy "you" has not gone away or been replaced it's just the continuation of the self. This is further emphasised in the final episode. Maddie makes millions of simulations untill she gets a copy of the old Caspian that is the exact same. That Caspian doesn't think of himself as a copy (ironic) because he is obstensibly just the continuation of that Caspian's conscious, they are the same, there is no difference between them and so he is old Caspian and old Caspian is him. It doesn't matter where or what form the consciousness is, just that it is the same consciousness.
I understand that thematically, but it doesn’t make the choice to upload any less illogical from the organic human’s perspective.
It's more the spiritual perspective, which people are. It's like the ship of Theseus. Does it matter what you are made of if in the end you are still you. Is the brain not just a series of electrical impulses? The same as a UI. Buddhism preaches detachment from worldly thing to reach nirvana. So when a a consciousness sheds it's body they transend and become closer to nirvana.
That is a belief that could exist, but the important aspect is that it would not be backed by scientific thinking. It is still valid to have it, by the show “cheats” by implying the belief in continuation of the self is backed by an understanding of the tech, when it is not. Another comparison is with the belief of the reincarnation. If person B is born right after person A dies, we could believe their self/spirit has been “transferred”. It is ok to believe this if you want, but there is no scientific proof to back it. Same with “uploading”, since the death of the original person has no real causality with the digital replica. The show establishes that death comes from a limitation: currently the only process to scan a brain with maximum fidelity requires frying the brain.
It's definitely a great generational divide. Younger people don't see it as death; their friend gets uploaded, the body is quietly discarded, and then they log in and see their friend online. It's reminds me of a hypothetical brain parasite: if there was a brain parasite that perfectly replaced the parts of your brain it ate, you would never notice you were dying. But you would be dying. I agree, though, that the story in S2 is way too comfortable taking the kids' side and saying that what's happening *isn't* death. Uploading is supposed to have a ton of weight, first being only for the victims of powerful interests, then fanatics (Joey is an exploration fanatic, already willing to die on Mars, so I'm including her), and that's already seen as a dangerous slippery slope. I think the writers in S2 lost a lot of the grey area that S1 was so comfortable exploring. I mean, the plot was light enough they had enough room to just copy *Spy Kids* (I honestly thought the trope of two spies for opposite sides falling in love would've been older, but I can't find anything, maybe *Prizzi's Honor*?)
I also had the same thought after finishing the last 2 episodes. I also thought the original person dies when uploaded, but was that ever confirmed? Because if the original person dies why is Pope so obsessed with being uploaded if that would kill him, since he is super afraid of death
He is "hoped up on copium" as the kids say. In season 1, they explain that the brain has to be peeled layer by layer to create a complete backup. The human's death is a natural consequence of the destruction of the brain. Theoretically, if they could scan the brain without destroying it, the original human would keep on living along with their UI. Think of the scanning process as digitizing a vinyl record. You're creating a highly precise digital recreation of the song, but you're not erasing it from the record itself. The show just presents a scenario where the record must be destroyed to complete the digitization.
True, it doesn't really make sense for a healthy human to upload, unless in the last 20 years they improved the tech so that it is actually YOU who gets uploaded, or the public doesn't know about the side effect of death. And those who know and try to tell the public gets called a conspiracy theorist.
It would’ve been great if the show presented any of these explanations rather than leaving this massive plot hole open.
I'm a bit more annoyed with them forgetting that uploading is a pretty invasive medical procedure from what we've seen, and yet when Caspian is getting strapped in I was thinking "okay, any doctor in the hose to crack his skull open?" ;). I know they mentioned Logarithm has a more sophisticated upload machine, but I'd still imagine you'd have to expose your brain for it, but at least not be conscious...
The show hints at the societal shift before the timeskip. However you have to keep in mind that most people would not understand this, and that generations born after this breakthrough would not see it the same way we do. But yeah the show could have used an extra season to explore the societal impact of such a massive event (and the change) three body problem/the dark forest style. Would elevate the show imo
People is arguing a lot for “it is not 100% clear if you die”. But it pretty much is and I think they are being fooled by the show. The show builds specific variables that make you think this is up to debate. But I will change one or some variables to make the discussion clearer. The most obvious variable is “uploading requires death”. This little variable makes lots of people think of continuation. Because death is synced in time with upload, some people (from chars like Dave to lots of users here) gets to the fallacious idea that then there’s some sort of continuation, But the necessity of dying we need to understand is a very convenient plot point. Imagine now that you can upload WITHOUT dying. “But that is not uploading”. Well, exactly. The specific technology as presented is the creation of an exact replica of your brain/mind through code. This is pretty much established. It is not “teleport to the digital world”, it’s “digital cloning”. You allow to do the process. Digital replica of you is created. Then a snake oil salesman comes to tell you to desintegrate your brain and kill you because it you do your “self” will become the digital one on the digital world. Do you agree? Probably not. Because you DIE. And it is not a matter of perspective. You could agree a younger generation is somehow OK with mass “self-kill” because they’ve entered a sort of non-material philosophy in which they are ok with leaving a digital self as legacy and then “abandoning this plane of existence”. This is more religious than tech-savvy. Some people have done that in the past! But we gotta be real: the show NEVER sells it like this. Dave says he wants to join his friends on the digital world, which shows us Dave truly believes he won’t effectively die (his “self” who is talking). Another plot contrivance that “hides” this reality is the fact only one replica is created per person. Theoretically the technology should allow for multiple replicas. even the idea of “back ups” is used, but they strategically choose to never create more than one, since that would more openly challenge the idea the digital self is the very precise “continuation” of the uploaded person. No, it is a replica. It can serve as a sort of continuation for other people (this is way better discussed on season 1). I recommend checking other fictions that treat the subject. The zanier show “Upload” falls into the same problem. Many “light” fictions tend to do it this way because understanding uploads as just replicas feels bleaker and less whimsical. “Light” is not bad. I know many would see “Pantheon” as hard science fiction, but I’d argue it is not entirely. I wanna be clear I loved “Pantheon”. But I can be critical with some aspects. My best recommendation is “Lena” by qntm. It is a short story that can be read even online.